How Inner Resonance reads a frequency study
Our research-reading method: what belongs in an article, what remains a hypothesis, and what cannot become a product promise.
We record more than the conclusion: study type, sample, comparison, outcomes, limitations and sources that readers can verify.
In this article

Write the question clearly first
We record participants, intervention, comparison and outcomes. “Self-reported relaxation after ten minutes” is not the same question as “long-term clinical outcome”.
Do not stop at the paper title
Individual experiments offer clues; systematic reviews try to organise all relevant studies. PRISMA 2020 and the Cochrane Handbook help readers assess reporting transparency, bias, inconsistency and precision.[1][2]
Evidence coordinates in every article
Each review names its evidence type and states what is reasonably established and what remains uncertain.
- Study type and sample size
- Control condition and measurement
- Consistency of findings
- Applicability to the current product context
- Primary sources and last-updated date
Allow updates while keeping limits visible
Scientific content changes with new research. We show first-published and last-updated dates; when evidence is insufficient, we write “uncertain” instead of hiding it behind polished copy.

Hertz Studio
Adjust brainwave ranges, left and right channels, volume and duration.
Open the Web StudioCreate a Personal Direction
Share the essentials and begin a personal sound profile.
Create My DirectionReferences and primary sources
- [1]PRISMA 2020 Statement · PRISMA · 2020
Checklist and flow for transparent reporting of systematic reviews.
- [2]Chapter 15: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions · Cochrane Handbook · 2024
Framework for interpreting certainty and limitations of evidence.



Loading comments…